Researcher: JM Page 1 4/26/22
OLR Bill Analysis
sHB 5038
AN ACT IMPLEMENTING THE GOVERNOR'S BUDGET
RECOMMENDATIONS CONCERNING EDUCATION.
TABLE OF CONTENTS:
§ 1 – OPEN CHOICE HARTFORD REGION GRANT
Creates an additional $2,000 per student Open Choice grant for Hartford region school
districts that accept Hartford students
BACKGROUND
§§ 2-3 – ALLIANCE DISTRICT PROGRAM RENEWAL
Renews the alliance district program for five years; creates the category of “graduated alliance
districts” to capture districts that once, but no longer, qualify as alliance districts, and prohibits
these districts from reducing their MBR
§§ 4-6 —EDUCATION COST SHARING (ECS) GRANTS AND PHASE IN
SCHEDULE
Changes some of the factors used in the ECS phase in schedule regarding ECS grant increases
and decreases; essentially keeps the yearly changes the same as under current law
§§ 7 – 27 & 33-36 – TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING CHANGES TO
MAKE THE CONNECTICUT TECHNICAL EDUCATION AND CAREER
SYSTEM (CTECS) AN INDEPENDENT STATE AGENCY
Makes numerous conforming, minor, and technical changes necessary as part of transitioning
CTECS into an independent agency; addresses specific duties of the CTECS executive director
and superintendent
§§ 28-32 – CTECS AND THE TEACHERS RETIREMENT SYSTEM (TRS)
Makes conforming changes to maintain CTECS teachers and professional staff as members in
the TRS
§ 1 – OPEN CHOICE HARTFORD REGION GRANT
Creates an additional $2,000 per student Open Choice grant for Hartford region school
districts that accept Hartford students
This bill creates an additional $2,000 per student grant for Hartford
region school districts that accept public-school students through the
Open Choice program. Open Choice is a voluntary inter-district
attendance program that allows students from urban school districts to
attend suburban school districts, and vice versa, on a space-available
basis. The State Department of Education (SDE) provides a per-student 2022HB-05038-R000628-BA.DOCX
Researcher: JM Page 2 4/26/22
grant for school districts that receive Open Choice students.
Under existing law, the grants range from $3,000 to $8,000 per
student, with higher grant amounts going to districts where the Open
Choice students represent a higher percentage of the school district’s
enrollment. For example, a district receives $3,000 per student if Open
Choice students are less than 2% of the district’s total student
population. The grant amount increases incrementally until, at the
highest amount, a district receives $8,000 per student if Open Choice
students are at least 4% of the district’s student population. Under the
bill, the $2,000 per student grant is in addition to these amounts.
The additional grants will be provided to receiving school districts
for each out-of-district student who resides in the Hartford region (i.e.,
the Sheff region) and attends school in a receiving district under the
program (see BACKGROUND). The annual additional grants begin in
FY 23, within available appropriations, and are paid to assist the state in
meeting its obligations under the Comprehensive School Choice Plan,
which is part of the most recent renewal of the Sheff v. O’Neill court
decision and agreements (see BACKGROUND).
BACKGROUND
Sheff v. O'Neill Decision
In 1996, the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled in Sheff that the racial,
ethnic, and economic isolation of Hartford public school students
violated their right to a “substantially equal educational opportunity”
under the state constitution (238 Conn. 1 (1996)). It ordered the state and
the plaintiff’s representatives to work out an agreement, which since has
been renewed several times, for the voluntary desegregation of Hartford
students.
Sheff Region
This region includes the school districts of Avon, Bloomfield, Canton,
East Granby, East Hartford, East Windsor, Ellington, Farmington,
Glastonbury, Granby, Hartford, Manchester, Newington, Rocky Hill,
Simsbury, South Windsor, Suffield, Vernon, West Hartford,
Wethersfield, Windsor, and Windsor Locks. 2022HB-05038-R000628-BA.DOCX
Researcher: JM Page 3 4/26/22
EFFECTIVE DATE: July 1, 2022
§§ 2-3 – ALLIANCE DISTRICT PROGRAM RENEWAL
Renews the alliance district program for five years; creates the category of “graduated
alliance districts” to capture districts that once, but no longer, qualify as alliance districts,
and prohibits these districts from reducing their MBR
Under current law the five-year designation for the 33 alliance
districts will expire on July 11, 2022. The bill requires the education
commissioner to designate 33 alliance districts for five more years,
beginning with FY 23. Under the bill, the new designation applies to the
33 school districts with the lowest accountability index (AI) scores (see
BACKGROUND) .
As under the program’s prior authorization, the bill requires the
comptroller to withhold from an alliance district town any increase in
Education Cost Sharing (ECS) funds that are over the amount the town
received in 2012. The comptroller transfers the money to the education
commissioner to withhold until she approves the district’s alliance
district application and plan to improve academic performance.
According to the SDE, the alliance districts serve more than 200,000
students in 410 schools.
The existing law requires the alliance districts to expend their alliance
funds (1) in accordance with the plan submitted with the application, (2)
the minority candidate certification, retention, and residency program,
(3) ECS spending requirements, and (4) any other SDE guidelines.
Graduated Alliance Districts (§ 2)
The bill creates the category of “graduated alliance districts” to
capture former alliance districts from 2013-2017 or 2018-22, the first two
rounds of the program, that are no longer in the lowest 33 districts in
the state when ranked by their AI scores.
The graduated alliance district designation lasts for five years, and
the bill creates a five-year phase out, in increments, of the amount of
ECS funds withheld. The phase-out schedule for graduated alliance
districts is a follows: 2022HB-05038-R000628-BA.DOCX
Researcher: JM Page 4 4/26/22
1. FY 23, same amount as withheld for FY 22,
2. FY 24, 75% of the amount withheld for FY 22,
3. FY 25, 50% of the amount withheld for FY 22,
4. FY 26, 25% of the amount withheld for FY 22, and
5. FY 27, nothing withheld.
The bill requires a graduated alliance district to submit an application
in order to receive the withheld funds and the application must be
submitted when and how the education commissioner prescribes. The
bill does not require the application to meet the requirements of an
alliance district application.
Minimum Budget Requirement (MBR) and Graduated Alliance
Districts (§ 3)
Under existing law, alliance districts are prohibited from reducing
their MBR. The bill applies the same prohibition to graduated alliance
districts.
The MBR generally prohibits a town from budgeting less for
education than it did in the previous fiscal year. Although some towns
are exempt if they have high performing school districts and in general,
a town can qualify for a reduced MBR if certain conditions are met, such
as a decrease in student enrollment from one year to another.
BACKGROUND
Accountability Index Scores
The “accountability index score” for a school district or an individual
school means the score resulting from multiple weighted measures that
(1) include the mastery test scores (i.e., the performance index score) and
high school graduation rates and (2) may include academic growth over
time, attendance and chronic absenteeism, postsecondary education
and career readiness, enrollment in and graduation from higher
education institutions and postsecondary education programs, civics
and arts education, and physical fitness (CGS § 10-223e(a)). 2022HB-05038-R000628-BA.DOCX
Researcher: JM Page 5 4/26/22
EFFECTIVE DATE: July 1, 2022
§§ 4-6 —EDUCATION COST SHARING (ECS) GRANTS AND PHASE
IN SCHEDULE
Changes some of the factors used in the ECS phase in schedule regarding ECS grant
increases and decreases; essentially keeps the yearly changes the same as under current
law
The ECS grant program is the state’s largest aid program for towns.
The bill changes some of the factors used in the ECS phase in schedule
for ECS grant increases and decreases, but essentially keeps the yearly
changes the same as under current law. It also modifies the method for
determining the ECS grant for alliance districts and applies the same
method to the new graduated alliance districts (created in § 2 of the bill).
Under the bill, and current law, towns that are underfunded
regarding their ECS grant will be fully funded by FY 28. Towns that are
overfunded gradually receive reductions, from FY 24 to FY 29, until they
are at their fully funded level.
With respect to overfunded towns, current law uses the FY 17 ECS
aid amount as a starting point every year to determine how much an
overfunded town should have its funding reduced. Under the bill, the
ECS reductions for overfunded towns are essentially kept the same, but
the factors used to make this happen are different (e.g., rather than the
FY 17 ECS amount, the bill uses the ECS amount for the most recent
fiscal year).
Some towns are overfunded due primarily to the years when the state
froze the level of funding for all towns, even if some towns’ student
enrollment dropped. A town with declining enrollment generally
receives less funding when the formula is updated with new enrollment
figures.
EFFECTIVE DATE: July 1, 2022
Changing Terms Used to Categorize Towns (§ 4)
The bill changes some of the terms used to determine the first step in
ECS grant funding: whether a town is underfunded or overfunded. 2022HB-05038-R000628-BA.DOCX
Researcher: JM Page 6 4/26/22
Under current law, an underfunded town is one whose fully funded
grant amount, as determined by the formula, is greater than its base
grant amount. Then the town is entitled to an increase in its ECS grant.
A town’s base grant amount is the ECS grant amount the town was
entitled to for FY 17, minus authorized cuts implemented during FY 17.
Under the bill, beginning with FY 23, the phase in compares the fully
funded grant amount to a town’s ECS grant for the previous fiscal year,
rather than the base grant amount. Therefore, any town whose fully
funded grant amount is greater than the town’s ECS grant amount for
the previous fiscal year, is entitled to an ECS grant increase.
The bill also uses the ECS grant amount for the previous fiscal year,
rather than the base grant, to determine if a town is overfunded. Under
current law, an overfunded town is one whose fully funded grant is less
than its base grant. Then the town is entitled to either an amount the
town received in FY 21 or, starting in FY 24, a decreased grant amount
each year. The bill instead compares the fully funded amount to the
town’s ECS grant for the previous fiscal year.
Grant Adjustment (§ 6)
When determining ECS grant increases or decreases, current law uses
a town’s “grant adjustment,” which is the absolute value of the
difference between a town’s base grant amount and its fully funded
grant amount. The bill changes this definition to the absolute value of
the difference between a town’s ECS grant entitlement for the previous
year and its fully funded grant amount. For underfunded towns, the
grant adjustment is the amount needed to be fully funded; for
overfunded towns, it’s the amount the town is funded above its fully
funded grant.
ECS Phase-In Adjustments (§ 4)
Table 1 shows how the bill changes the phase in for FYs 23-25 ECS
grants.
Table 1: ECS Phase-In Adjustments for ECS Grants (FYs 23-25)
FY 23 FY 24 FY 25
Town Current Bill Current Bill Current Bill 2022HB-05038-R000628-BA.DOCX
Researcher: JM Page 7 4/26/22
Type Law Law Law
Under-
funded
Previous
FY amount
plus
10.66% of
grant
adjustment
Previous
FY amount
plus
16.67% of
grant
adjustment*
Previous
FY amount
plus
10.66% of
grant
adjustment
Previous
FY amount
plus 20% of
grant
adjustment*
Previous
FY amount
plus
10.66% of
grant
adjustment
Previous
FY amount
plus 25% of
grant
adjustment*
Over-
funded
No
reduction
(held
harmless)
to FY 21
amount
No
reduction
(held
harmless)
to FY 22
amount (no
actual
change
from
current law)
Previous
FY amount
minus
8.33% of
grant
adjustment
Previous
FY amount
minus
14.29% of
grant
adjustment*
(excludes
alliance
districts,
see below)
Previous
FY amount
minus
8.33% of
grant
adjustment
Previous
FY amount
minus
16.67% of
grant
adjustment*
(excludes
alliance
districts,
see below)
*Under the bill, “grant adjustment” means the absolute value of the difference between a town’s
ECS grant amount for the previous year and its fully funded grant amount. Generally, under the
bill, the grant adjustment figure (before applying the percentage) will be smaller than under
current law.
Under current law, for FYs 26 and 27, an underfunded town is
entitled to an ECS grant for each year that equals the town’s previous
fiscal year’s grant plus 10.66% of its grant adjustment. Under the bill for
each of these years, underfunded towns are entitled to their ECS grant
amount for the previous year plus 33.33% of its grant adjustment for FY
26 and 50% of its grant adjustment for FY 27.
For the same years, current law provides an overfunded town with a
grant equal to its grant for the previous fiscal year minus 8.33% of its
grant adjustment. The bill changes the reduction for overfunded towns
based on using the ECS grant amount for the previous year and the
revised definition of the grant adjustment (i.e., minus 20% of grant
adjustment for FY 26 and minus 25% of grant adjustment for FY 27).
Using the same method, the bill changes the reduction for overfunded
towns as follows:
1. for FY 28, from current law’s reduction of 8.33% of the grant
adjustment to a reduction of 33.33% of the grant adjustment, and
2. for FY 29, from current law’s reduction of 8.33% of the grant 2022HB-05038-R000628-BA.DOCX
Researcher: JM Page 8 4/26/22
adjustment to reduction of 50%.
For FYs 28 and 29, under current law and the bill, underfunded towns
will be fully funded.
Alliance Districts and Graduated Alliance Districts (§ 4)
Under current law, for FYs 24-29, any overfunded town that is an
alliance district is entitled to an ECS grant equal to its FY 17 amount after
reductions in FY 17 (i.e., base grant amount). Under the bill beginning
in FY 24, an alliance district, regardless of whether it is overfunded or
underfunded, receives an amount that is the greater of (1) the amount
the bill determines for either overfunded or underfunded towns,
depending on what applies for the alliance district, for that year, (2) its
base grant amount, or (3) its ECS grant for the previous fiscal year.
The bill applies this same mechanism for FYs 24-29 for determining
the ECS grant for graduated alliance districts, which is a new
designation for districts that are former alliance districts (see § 2).
Base Aid Ratio (§ 5)
Under current law, the base aid ratio is a measure of town property
wealth (measured by property wealth and income level) used in the ECS
formula, and the law establishes a minimum of 10% base aid ratio for
alliance districts. The bill gives priority school districts the same
minimum base aid ratio of 10%.
By law, priority school districts are districts whose students receive
low standardized test scores and have high levels of poverty (CGS § 10-
266p(a)).
§§ 7-27 & 33-36 – TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING CHANGES TO
MAKE THE CONNECTICUT TECHNICAL EDUCATION AND
CAREER SYSTEM (CTECS) AN INDEPENDENT STATE AGENCY
Makes numerous conforming, minor, and technical changes necessary as part of
transitioning CTECS into an independent agency; addresses specific duties of the CTECS
executive director and superintendent
By law, the Connecticut Technical Education and Career System
(CTECS) (formerly known as the technical high school system) becomes
an independent state agency, separate from SDE, by July 1, 2022 (i.e., the 2022HB-05038-R000628-BA.DOCX
Researcher: JM Page 9 4/26/22
2022-23 school year). The bill makes numerous minor and technical
changes necessary as part of CTECS’ transition to an independent
agency. This analysis highlights the more significant of these changes.
The bill makes changes to the statutes to reflect that CTECS has its
own board and leadership that is not subject to SBE governance. Under
the bill:
1. SDE is no longer allowed to receive any money or property given
or bequeathed to CTECS (§ 7);
2. CTECS, rather than SBE, is required to provide the professional
services necessary to identify, in accordance with state special
education law, children enrolled at a technical high school who
require special education and to provide an appropriate
education for these students (§ 10);
3. CTECs executive director takes over responsibility of the
Vocational Education Extension Fund that includes the
apprenticeship account, which helps pay for needed
apprenticeship program materials and equipment (§ 12); and
4. CTECS executive director replaces SBE in the process for
temporarily closing a technical high school and moves authority
to close a school for more than six months from SBE to the CTECS
board (§ 16).
The bill also repeals three obsolete laws regarding an expired
reporting requirement (CGS § 10-4r), an obsolete appointment (CGS §
10-13), and an expired study requirement (CGS § 10-95m).
EFFECTIVE DATE: July 1, 2022
Hiring a CTECS Superintendent (§ 17)
Under existing law, the executive director, who is appointed by the
governor, is the head executive of CTECS and the superintendent is the
school leader in charge of education who answers to the executive
director. The CTECS board is the policy making body. 2022HB-05038-R000628-BA.DOCX
Researcher: JM Page 10 4/26/22
Under current law, the board recommends superintendent
candidates to the education commissioner and beginning July 1, 2023, it
would begin making recommendations instead to the CTECS executive
director. The bill moves up this change by a year to begin on July 1, 2022.
As under existing law, the bill gives the executive director discretion to
hire or reject any superintendent candidate the board recommends. The
bill specifies that when the executive director rejects a candidate, the
board must recommend another candidate until the executive director
hires one.
Existing law allows the superintendent’s three-year term to be
extended, and the bill specifies the executive director has this authority
provided he consults with the board first.
Under the bill, a candidate cannot be hired or assume superintendent
duties until the executive director receives written confirmation from
the education commissioner that the candidate is properly certified as a
superintendent or has received a certification waiver from the
commissioner, as permitted by law.
Acting Superintendent. The bill allows an executive director to hire
a candidate, who is not certified, as an acting superintendent for a one-
year probationary period if the education commissioner approves. An
acting superintendent assumes all duties of the superintendent and
must successfully complete an SBE-approved school leadership
program at a higher education institution in the state.
When the probationary period ends, the executive director can
request that the commissioner grant a (1) certification waiver for the
acting superintendent, as allowed under state law, or (2) one-time
probationary period extension of no more than a year. To grant the
extension, the commissioner must determine the executive director
showed a significant need or hardship for it.
Administrative Policies. The bill requires the superintendent, in
consultation with the executive director, to develop and revise, as
necessary, administrative policies for the operation of the technical
education and career schools and programs offered in the system. It 2022HB-05038-R000628-BA.DOCX
Researcher: JM Page 11 4/26/22
specifies these administrative policies must not be considered state
regulations.
Under existing law, the superintendent is responsible for the
operation and administration of the technical education and career
schools and other CTECS education matters. The bill adds that the
superintendent is also responsible for supervision of the schools and
educational matters.
Evaluation. The executive director, in consultation with the board,
must evaluate, at least annually, the superintendent’s performance
according to guidelines and criteria the executive director and the board
set.
Master Schedule (§ 19)
The bill requires the superintendent, rather than the executive
director as under current law, to establish a master schedule for CTECS.
The executive director must ensure the superintendent does this.
CTECS Board (§ 20)
The bill gives the governor the authority to remove a CTECS board
member for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or misconduct in office. Under
current law, the board’s appointed members serve at the pleasure of the
governor (CGS § 4-1a). The bill also prohibits any CTECS employee
from being a member of the board.
By law, the CTECS board consists of 11 members, seven appointed
by the governor and confirmed by the General Assembly and four
executive branch officials serving ex-officio. Among other things, it
advises the superintendent and executive director on specified matters.
By law, the CTECS board must establish achievement goals for its
students and use quantifiable measures for the performance of each
technical high school. One required measure is student performance on
state mastery exams, as defined in law, in grade 10 or 11. The bill
changes this to performance on standardized academic assessments
without the statutory reference, which could include standardized tests
that are not part of the state mastery test law. 2022HB-05038-R000628-BA.DOCX
Researcher: JM Page 12 4/26/22
§§ 28-32 – CTECS AND THE TEACHERS RETIREMENT SYSTEM
(TRS)
Makes conforming changes to maintain CTECS teachers and professional staff as
members in TRS
Existing law allows CTECS teachers and other professional staff to
choose between TRS or the State Employee Retirement System when
they are hired. The bill makes several conforming changes to maintain
membership in TRS for CTECS teachers and other professional staff.
(TRS membership consists primarily of local board of education
teachers and other professionals.)
Specifically, the bill adds CTECS to TRS’s list of employers and
definition of public school (§§ 28 & 29). It similarly adds CTECS
professional staff to TRS’s definition of teacher (working as a teacher
with a state certification is considered professional) (§ 30).
BACKGROUND
Related Bill
HB 5283, favorably reported out by the Education Committee,
contains similar changes to the ECS phase in.
COMMITTEE ACTION
Education Committee
Joint Favorable Substitute Change of Reference - APP
Yea 29 Nay 10 (03/25/2022)
Appropriations Committee
Joint Favorable Substitute
Yea 49 Nay 0 (04/07/2022)